Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Galloism]

Just in case anyone thought this wasn't unusual...

Prosecutor: 911 dispatcher will testify "she called the police on the police" during the incident
Prosecuting attorney Jerry Blackwell said that they will call to testify a Minneapolis 911 dispatcher who watched the incident from a feed from a fixed police camera located in the neighborhood.

"You'll learn that what she saw was so unusual and for her so disturbing that she did something she had never done in her career. She called the police on the police," he said.
Blackwell said that the 911 dispatcher called a police sergeant because she was disturbed by what she was watching.

"She will tell you she felt she saw man literally lose his life," he said.

A 911 dispatcher knew that shit was not normal.

[Alien Overlord]

How someone dies doesn't change the manner in which they lived. I can sympathize with the way he died, I can't sympathize with him as a person. It's possible to recognize that bad things can happen to bad people. Regardless even if Floyd was a bad person, it shouldn't have any impact on the trial (which i'm sure you'll agree with). If it's your desire to sympathize with George Floyd then that's your business, but some people do recognize his crimes in the past and can't sympathize with him, it's something that should be understood to be an opinion when it comes down to it, it shouldn't have any bearing on the trial regardless of whether the general public thinks George Floyd was an angel sent from heaven or a criminal who never desired to make amends for his crimes.

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it. I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does. His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?

Then how about a different example?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer who died by the electric chair. By many accounts the electric chair is a horrible way to die. It can cause cardiac arrest, paralyses and respiratory failure. Does he deserve your sympathy for dying this way despite his horrible crimes?

That was after due process, not during the arrest.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

[Destyntine]

I went back to watch the video of Derek Chauvin killing George Floyd, and it is really just as messed up as I remember the first time. Derek Chauvin is definitely guilty.

[Western Theram]

Mr. Nelson, building an argument that the use of force against Mr. Floyd was reasonable, is saying jurors will see video of the squad car he was put in before the neck restraint by Mr. Chauvin rocking back and forth. “This was not an easy struggle.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/29 ... trial-live

[The Black Forrest]

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it. I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does. His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?

That was after due process, not during the arrest.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

His public image and his past are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am not sure why you don’t understand the problem of a policeman slowly killing a person?

[Silvedania]

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it. I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does. His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?

That was after due process, not during the arrest.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

No, we mean that he shouldn't have been murdered. He'd already have served his due jail time and yet he was still murdered for one possible counterfeit bill. The highest charge for counterfeit in history has been 20 years and a fine. Yet he was murdered before due process was served.

[Alien Overlord]

Then how about a different example?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer who died by the electric chair. By many accounts the electric chair is a horrible way to die. It can cause cardiac arrest, paralyses and respiratory failure. Does he deserve your sympathy for dying this way despite his horrible crimes?

Even that doesn't really make it a better comparison.

We're not talking psychopathic dictator or violent revolutionary or serial killer, we're talking about a petty criminal. That's a pretty different league, at least to me, and it's easily possible to justify "the dictator, revolutionary and serial killer doesn't deserve sympathy, but the petty criminal does".

I wouldn't call aggravated robbery and cocaine possession petty but nonetheless why? Why does it change for "petty" criminals as opposed to more violent criminals? What's the logic in it? Do dictators or revolutionaries or serial killers not feel the exact same pain that you and I do? We can just cherry pick which times a tragic death is going to absolve someone of past crimes? Because as previously mentioned it's the act of their death that supposed to derive sympathy and the past should be forgotten in wake of that, right? So how does that change for more serious offenders? Why does it change other than personal preference?

[Western Theram]

March 29, 2021, 11:54 a.m. ET6 minutes ago
6 minutes ago
Timothy ArangoReporting from Minneapolis
There's a noticeable difference between Mr. Nelson’s demeanor during his opening right now compared to jury selection. When questioning jurors, he appeared friendly and tried to get jurors to relax, asking them about their hobbies. Today he is serious, stern, blunt and in command of the case as he sees it.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/29 ... trial-live

[Ifreann]

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it.

I have never suggested that his killing absolves him of his past crimes. I literally just said that his criminal record is irrelevant.

I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does.

And those people, yourself included, are wrong.

His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

I'm in no rush.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?

For that to be a comparable situation, Chauvin would have to be killed for some reason totally unrelated to his killing of Floyd.

[Auphelia]

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

No, your sympathy is irrelevant.

The argument is about whether Derek Chauvin committed a crime.

George Floyd is not on trial here.

[Ethel mermania]

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it. I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does. His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?

That was after due process, not during the arrest.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

It is irrelevant.

Chauvin is not the angel of justice. The courts determine the appropriate punishment. Floyd being al capone or mother Theresa is irrelevant to Chauvin actions. If Floyd was somehow a threat to Chauvin he may have a justified reason for killing Floyd. Floyd face down and handcuffed presented no such risk.

[Alien Overlord]

Snip

I already mentioned that I think the trial of Chauvin is justified, so I do see a problem in the incident. I was questioned over morality and why I don't sympathize with Floyd and I'm engaging with that discussion. I've mentioned more than a few times that it shouldn't have any impact on the trial already.

No, we mean that he shouldn't have been murdered. He'd already have served his due jail time and yet he was still murdered for one possible counterfeit bill. The highest charge for counterfeit in history has been 20 years and a fine. Yet he was murdered before due process was served.

Well he was killed quite frankly. I'm not sure how to respond to your opinion because I'm not totally sure what part of my argument your fighting. I'm not arguing whether he should have died or not, he shouldn't have. That doesn't make everyone sympathetic to him though.

Similarly you talk as though the manner in which he died somehow absolves him of his past history and should generate sympathy in everyone who hears about it. I'm telling you that not everyone is going to be sympathetic to him. For you and some others his criminal past doesn't change anything for you in terms of recognizing whether he's worthy of sympathy or not, but for others it does. His criminal past is irrelevant to the trial but not to the public image of him and the faster that it's recognized that people will have different viewpoints, the faster people on both sides can make meaningful progress in discussion.

Fundamentally we aren't arguing about the trial, we're arguing about Floyds public image. The fact that he has a criminal past is a fact that no one on any side of the debate argues or challenges. Many people have to ask themselves whether dying unfairly absolves someone of past crimes and not everyone is going to agree. I for one don't see Chauvin or Floyd as angels, both were bad people. Floyds death was tragic yes, but it doesn't change anything.

I mean just out of curiosity, if Derek Chauvin were to die under the electric chair would you have sympathy for him?


That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is whether a violent death absolves someone of past crimes morally.

It is irrelevant.

Chauvin is not the angel of justice. The courts determine the appropriate punishment. Floyd being al capone or mother Theresa is irrelevant to Chauvin actions. If Floyd was somehow a threat to Chauvin he may have a justified reason for killing Floyd. Floyd face down and handcuffed presented no such risk.

You're trying to argue with me on point I don't disagree with you on. I agree that Chauvin is guilty, I agree that the courts should determine the appropriate punishment, i agree that in terms of the trial the character of Floyd is irrelevant and i agree Floyd presented no risk.

I was argued over my opinion regarding my own personal non-sympathies for Floyd which has no bearing on the trial but is relevant to the public image of Floyd, since I'm not the only one that feels he's not deserving of sympathy. Specifically I was argued as to why I didn't sympathize with Floyd since he died in a brutal way, to which I don't think that the manner in which someone dies absolves them of prior actions. It doesn't mean that Floyd deserved what happened to him, however what happened to him doesn't make him deserving of praise or sympathy past the way he died. He died brutally which is something i can sympathize with, but i can't sympathize with him as a person due to his past.

[Auphelia]

I was argued over my opinion regarding my own personal non-sympathies for Floyd which has no bearing on the trial but is relevant to the public image of Floyd, since I'm not the only one that feels he's not deserving of sympathy. Specifically I was argued as to why I didn't sympathize with Floyd since he died in a brutal way, to which I don't think that the manner in which someone dies absolves them of prior actions. It doesn't mean that Floyd deserved what happened to him, however what happened to him doesn't make him deserving of praise or sympathy past the way he died. He died brutally which is something i can sympathize with, but i can't sympathize with him as a person due to his past.

No one is arguing that a crime committed against you would absolve you of past crimes. No one is saying that George Floyd as a person is worthy of unconditional sympathy. But as a death to any person, performed outside of the proper legal structures, his death is worthy of sympathy, as you said. You are arguing against points no one has made.

This is a thread about a trial. Your lack of sympathy for a murdered man does not matter.

[Major-Tom]

My concern is that the defense will pander to their audience and "put Floyd on trial," ignoring the actual crimes at hand and instead denigrating the character of the dead person. This could be very effective, unfortunately. Character assassination in trial courts is especially prominent, particularly when you have a high-profile case such as this.

[Deacarsia]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

[The Black Forrest]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

Coooooooool. Mind showing us this evidence?

[Ifreann]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs.

Untrue.

[Insaanistan]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

Is there any evidence besides what you decided in your head because “white cop killed black man so black man must be bad”?

[Major-Tom]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

No, that is not what the evidence states. If the evidence demonstrated this, we wouldn't have Chauvin being tried for several murder charges. It's all about the proximate cause, if we can clearly see from video evidence that Chauvin laid his knee on a man's neck for 10 minutes, then we can presume that was a contributing factor, if not the biggest factor, in Floyd's death.

If Floyd had a heart condition, which is likely, as well as a drug problem, then those are smaller contributing factors. It seems unlikely that he was about to collapse and die suddenly in the street that day without a proximate cause of death, IE, Derek Chauvin.

I get that you probably want the case facts to be in your favor because you see prosecuting Chauvin as going against your worldview, which is a little daft, but honestly, the overwhelming evidence shows that Chauvin is at the very least partially culpable for this man's death. Not only that, the tactics used against Floyd were a severe overreaction to the crime being committed.

[Silvedania]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

completely false.

[Kilobugya]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

The well known « But Your Honor, the victim died from massive blood loss due to a hole in his body. Me having fired a bullet at him before that happened is just a coincidence, I'm innocent and should be acquitted. » defense. About as likely to work as prayer is to influence the judgment

[Alien Overlord]

I was argued over my opinion regarding my own personal non-sympathies for Floyd which has no bearing on the trial but is relevant to the public image of Floyd, since I'm not the only one that feels he's not deserving of sympathy. Specifically I was argued as to why I didn't sympathize with Floyd since he died in a brutal way, to which I don't think that the manner in which someone dies absolves them of prior actions. It doesn't mean that Floyd deserved what happened to him, however what happened to him doesn't make him deserving of praise or sympathy past the way he died. He died brutally which is something i can sympathize with, but i can't sympathize with him as a person due to his past.

No one is arguing that a crime committed against you would absolve you of past crimes. No one is saying that George Floyd as a person is worthy of unconditional sympathy. But as a death to any person, performed outside of the proper legal structures, his death is worthy of sympathy, as you said. You are arguing against points no one has made.

This is a thread about a trial. Your lack of sympathy for a murdered man does not matter.

Nor did I want it to matter or want to argue it. The argument began with Ifreann picking apart the first sentence in my first post on this thread which wasn't even the point of the post. I was arguing against points made by Ifreann, only others jumped in without reading which derailed the discussion and missed the point entirely.

George Floyd was a convicted criminal so while I have no love or sympathy for him, what happened did happen. My primary concern in this trial is whether it will truly be a fair one with so much pressure to convict Mr. Chauvin. Whether Mr. Chauvin was innocent or not in reality, i fully expect that we'll see a guilty verdict regardless. People are crying for blood and unfortunately that means Mr. Chauvin probably won't be given a fair shake.

George Floyd was a convicted criminal so while I have no love or sympathy for him...

What a terrible way to feel.

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

Derek Chauvin is guilty of a crime, he's not innocent. Your opinion is an extreme one.

My concern is that the defense will pander to their audience and "put Floyd on trial," ignoring the actual crimes at hand and instead denigrating the character of the dead person. This could be very effective, unfortunately. Character assassination in trial courts is especially prominent, particularly when you have a high-profile case such as this.

This is the essence of my own concerns and I agree with this opinion.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

I chose "other" because I believe he is guilty, but very irresponsible.

At the very least, he was extremely irresponsible and peculiar in action to kneel on someone's neck for minutes when restraints were available, and to keep hands in pockets for so long while "fearing for life".

[Densaner]

Derek Chauvin is guilty of murder. I hope the jury convicts him and that he spends all or at least most of the rest of his life behind bars.

[Nookville]

All the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin is innocent, and that George Floyd died from a heart attack induced by a fatal overdose on drugs. I hope and pray that he will be acquitted.

Quite the opposite. The autopsy found the death to be by homicide